Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Last week, U.S.-based think tank RAND Corporation – which also studied the prospects of war in the NATO member Baltic states – unveiled its latest thinking on
what a potential clash between the United States and China would look
like. The report is not direct U.S. government policy – although RAND
has long been regarded as a major generator of thought for the U.S.
military – but it does push the envelope further than much that has gone
before.

The report stresses that while premeditated
war between Washington and Beijing ”is very unlikely,” the mishandling
of disputes like the multiple territorial confrontations between China
and U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines are a “danger” that
“cannot be ignored.”

RAND examined
two different scenarios, one for an inadvertent conflict taking place in
the present day and one in 10 years from now, assuming Beijing’s
military and economic buildup continues at roughly its current rate.
China will substantially close its military gap with the United States
over the next decade, it predicts – but the fundamental dynamics of how
things will play out might not be hugely different.

Even
now, the People’s Liberation Army is seen as having the ability to give
a bloodied nose to U.S. forces in the region. Washington could expect
to lose an aircraft carrier and multiple other surface warships in the
opening stages, RAND warns, citing Chinese advances in ballistic and
guided missiles as well as submarines.

The
report does not estimate the number of human casualties, but they could
be substantial. The loss of an aircraft carrier or several major
surface warships could easily cost thousands of lives in an instant.

At the same time,
it’s also generally assumed that both Beijing and Washington would have
considerable success with cyber attacks.

As
another recent report points out, China’s effectiveness would difficult
to gauge – not least because it has not participated in a major
conflict since invading Vietnam in 1979.

The
real decision for Washington would be how much military force to commit
to the Asia Pacific theater. Other threats and responsibilities would
not have gone away – the Middle East would almost certainly still be a
mess and the risk of Russian action in Europe might actually be
heightened. Still, the United States would have considerable reserves of
aircraft and ships in reserve.

Whether
a conflict only endured days or weeks or dragged on for a year or more,
Washington would almost certainly retain the ability to strike widely
at Chinese targets across the battle space – including, in at least a
limited way, into mainland China. Over time, Beijing could face the
destruction of most, if not all, of its major surface naval forces. Its
relatively primitive submarines would also likely be fairly easy
picking, RAND predicts, although that will probably be less true by
2025.

The real battle of
attrition, however, would be economic – as it almost always is when
great powers confront each other. On that front, the consequences for
China could be devastating.

Washington
and Beijing are each other’s most significant trading partners. The
report estimates that 90 percent of that bilateral trade would cease if
the two were in direct military confrontation for a year. That would
hurt both sides, but the United States could likely continue trade with
much of the rest of the world while almost all imports and exports to
China would have to pass by sea through a war zone.Perhaps
most importantly, China might find itself cut off from vital external
energy sources while Washington’s energy supply chain would be far less
affected.

While RAND estimates a
year-long Asian war would take 5-10 percent off U.S. gross domestic
product, it believes China’s economy could shrink by up to 25 percent.

These are good
reasons why war should never happen. Even if miscalculations pushed both
countries to the brink, it’s all but impossible to make a logical
argument for either side to push things over the edge. The danger,
therefore, would seem to be primarily ill-conceived actions that might
cause a World War One-style escalation.

In
the case of the United States and China, RAND’s analysts say they
believe nuclear escalation would likely be avoided even if both sides
fought prolonged naval and air battles. That’s a major departure in
Western military thinking from the days of the Cold War, when nuclear
escalation was seen an almost inevitable consequence of any direct
conventional clash.

Whether that’s
certain is a different question. Wars tend to develop their own horrific
internal logic and momentum, and the temptation to move to more
powerful weapons is ever present.For
now, there’s no evidence that Beijing has adopted Moscow’s thinking on
“de-escalatory nuclear strikes,” using a single nuclear warhead in an
attempt to shock a Western adversary into standing down and ending the
conflict. But it’s possible to imagine that happening.

It’s
becoming increasingly important to consider scenarios like these. It we
don’t, the unthinkable might quietly – or worse still-- suddenly and
brutally become reality.

wHoA!

h0t!

~hEy Y"all! DoN"t MiSs GsGf~!

Guaranteed to magically transform subscribers into superior intellectuals, worldly, pious, witty, cool, fun to be with, irresistable, au courant and all together with it. Amaze friends, confound enemies and revel in the envy and righteous respect of peers.